 | | Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Ed "Boxer" Jones
|
| | | Why am I not surprised: "Under White House prodding, a House panel on Thursday approved legislation to further expand the government's ability to cut money flows to terrorist networks. A parallel bill is part of Bush's sweeping anti-terrorism (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) flows" doesn't mean it's a GOOD bill, or even that cutting money flows is what is going to be done. We have seen a LOT of 97-0 and 426-1 kind of votes lately, after rather little or no debate. Personally, John Ashcroft scares the jeepers out (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | Oh, and another thing, before you accuse others of calling names, you might want to avoid doing the same yourself, your subject line is a deliberate slur... unbacked by any fact (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'm not sure about that. It looks like the guy is a liiberterian (do you dispute that?) and that this bill may help catch the bad guys (do you dispute that?). Scott A (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) No. In fact we had a dustup in the past about whether he was or not and I was saying he was. (...) Yes I do dispute that. And even if it does help, which I dispute, it's not necessarily a good idea. We *could* pass a law requiring all airline (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) On what grounds? (...) You are being silly. (...) I'm not saying that. I don't want to speak for Ed, but I don't think he is either. (...) 1. You are lacking logic. If Lego did not list those items but just give some $$ with no fuss, how would (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) On the grounds that it may well be a flawed bill. I haven't found an article that cites which bill it is so it could be any of these: (from (URL) Bills from the 107th Congress ranked by relevance on"money laundering ". 42 bills containing your (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) "may well" is not "is" (...) So you have no basis for *your* mudslinging??? Have you no shame? (...) Why do we want to stop hijackings? To protect life and commerce? Your proposal will not do the latter. (...) You were taking a principle to (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Why don't you people trim anything? (...) I didn't see this original note...that's not a bad idea actually! I think we need more nudity. :-) (...) Did you read _Diamond Age_? What about the goombah with the gun in his forehead? (...) How's (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Go to Iceland. They have that there. According to _Maxim_ (not the worlds most reliable source) anyway. (...) Implied right to privacy makes it unconstitutional for government to require it, I think. (anyway it's required to make the example (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | (canceled) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | What, no answer? (was a LP span thread) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) What, no answer? Scott A (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | This really is a low form of debate —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Larry, I can't believe you are calling be a liar again. This really is a low form of debate. Give an example of were I have lied. I challenge you. Do it or apologise. If I have lied, I will apologise. Once you have done that, answer these: Re: (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: This really is a low form of debate —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) If lieing includes distorting the truth by omission, deliberately using pejorative terms to leave unfavorable impressions of situations and people, and in general playing fast and loose with the truth as it suits your whim, then I give you no (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | He doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | Larry, You are becoming a parody of yourself. The is typical of you, rather than answer the point you make a lot of noise and sling some mud. I shall ask you again. Give an example of were I have lied. I challenge you. Do it or apologise. If I have (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reading comprehension problems. —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Satisfied or not, that's all the apology you get. (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | He still doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | Larry, that was not an apology - that was more insults. More mud. More of your low level of debate. I shall ask you again. Give an example of were I have lied. I challenge you. Do it, or apologise. Put up, or shut up. All I am asking is that you (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: He still doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong. —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) No, but this isn't the place to ask. Larry's stated very clearly his position. Please sort it out privately with him. If after that Larry sees any reason to apologise, he can do that here, but this is not the place for your private feud. ROSCO (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: He still doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I think it is. This is where he made the unsubstantiated allegation. This is where he should substantiate it or apologise. I could call you “pond slime” here publicly, and then e-mail a quick note to say sorry. Would that suffice for you? (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: He still doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Thank you. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | Sometimes sacrifices have to be made Larry. Innocent people are being sacrificed in Afghanistan right now as we speak. Our armed forces are already risking their lives, and some special ops guys (& gals?) *may* already have died. If this converts to (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Yes it *is* too much, without probable cause. You forget what we are fighting for. (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Nope. Scott A (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Scott, I agree with Larry here. Yes, I'm prepared to make sacrifices. I'm not prepared to make unnecessary sacrifices, and your grocery bill example falls squarely in that category (unless, as Larry says, there's probable cause) ROSCO (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) The “grocery bill” comment was an attempt to trivialise the snooped material and focus on the snooping – not a hard argument. I am not proposing that “unnecessary sacrifices” should be made. The term is complete oxymoron in this context. The (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) You know what, Scott? You are absolutely right. That text IS worth the read and anyone who is wondering if the Guardian harbors fools or fellow travelers or not ought to go read it and carefully think about the bile that this author spews. (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Wow. That's something. He's even dead wrong on details; at least two of the hijackers *did* leave suicide notes, in the form of wills. Argue all you like about the justness of the US response and whether that's consistent with our message, but (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) He is a she. The text was published the day after the notes were found. I expect it was written before (it was in the Saturday supplement - not the main paper). The response of Guardian readers to the text is here: (URL) (...) I have said (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) She has written a Second piece for the Guardian. Again the text is strongly worded, but well written. Before anyone reads it, what do these nations have in common: China (1945-46, 1950-53), Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954, 1967-69), Indonesia (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Hmm. It looks like it does not agree with you view, so you start throwing mud. For the record, I think that is the 1st time Arundhati Roy (a booker prize winner - so no fool) has written for the Guardian. (...) Show us where the distortion is. (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Horst Lehner
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Yes, it is. Not by itself, but because it won't help track down a single terrorist. We have had a number of similar disputes here in Germany, where some politicians and executives said they need this or that legislation to track down the (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) So we should give in? Or should we keep on using our failing methods? (...) I could not resist. (...) I don't follow? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Horst Lehner
|
| | | | | | | | (...) We should USE the legislation we HAVE. Of course, this will NOT solve all problems, be it in the area of organized criminality, or terrorism. We also need to evolve or society, and the world order, into something that gives people less reason (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Ed "Boxer" Jones
|
| | | | | | (...) Hmmm... I believe Bush said something to the effect of "you will be our ally and help us root out terrorism or you side with terrorism and are the enemy" Not a direct quote, this is the crux of it. Paul has voted against a bill designed to (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | | (...) First, that doesn't mean that we owe Bush and his administration blind obedience. Thank God we still have a republic. I'm glad that there are dissenters in the audience (1), even if I disagree with them, because it prevents gestapoism (2). (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) And introduced several *other* bills designed to help root it out as well. From this vantage, those other bills, what I know of them (which is little), may well be MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE measures. I freely admit I cannot quote chapter and verse (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Ed Jones
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I do not have a cite for the bill numebr, but it is summarized here: (URL)Do you seriously want every bill that comes up that vaguely claims to be (...) Of course not, however, this bill is "terrorism" specific. (...) In actuality, the Money (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Kirby Warden
|
| | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed Jones writes: <snip> (...) This is not a good example. In the U.S. military, any "freedom" allotted, is merely a luxury. This from my own personnal experiance in the U.S. Navy for four years. Life in the service is (...) (23 years ago, 13-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | I agree with the basic point (since it's in support of mine) but must offer this correction... (...) Currently a voluntary forfeiture. At times in our history it was involuntary, since we had conscription. Libertarians oppose conscription, of (...) (23 years ago, 13-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | (...) I strongly disagree. It is precisely this kind of knee-jerk, poorly thought out logic that leads us down the path of the destruction of our beloved republic. Protecting our civil rights, enumerated and unemurated in the U.S. Constitution and (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Me too. What a great post. You and I perhaps differ about whether we can ameliorate terrorism by the course we're on now of taking the war to them and disassembling them and their regimes or not, but we agree 100% about the importance of our (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Horst Lehner
|
| | | | | | | (...) Yeah, the simple logic of a simple cowboy president. Do you always believe what your president says? (...) I don't know how exactly you define privacy. According to my definition, privacy is something individuals should be able to enjoy. So, (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I would agree that *public* companies should be totally open (like thats ever gonna happen), but I see no reason why *private* companies should not be allowed total privacy. I see them as similar to families. ROSCO (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | (...) Does the fact that Bush said something to that effect make his statement true? Fredrik (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists —James Simpson
|
| | | | (...) "coming through for them" and dissenting against a bill that you feel is not appropriate or effective for X reasons. Ed, do you know why he voted against that bill? Why do some homework before slinging mud? james (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Mudslingers come through for the Big Lie (was: a slur —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Why indeed? Slinging mud first is so much easier and more fun. (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Mudslingers come through for the Big Lie (was: a slur —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Hit send too fast. This of course was a Typo Pounce(tm) as I am sure James meant to say "why not..." but it was too good to pass up. (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Mudslingers come through for the Big Lie (was: a slur —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | (...) LOL! I did indeed. james (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Mudslingers come through for the Big Lie (was: a slur —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) You would know I suppose: (URL) A (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
